Radeon 540X vs GeForce GT 415M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 415M and Radeon 540X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
540X outperforms 415M by a whopping 453% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1228 | 754 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.39 | 5.83 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Lexa |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 5 September 2018 (7 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1046 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 33.47 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.096 TFLOPS | 1.071 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 8 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 48 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 3−4
−533%
| 19
+533%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−350%
|
9
+350%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−2000%
|
21
+2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−82.8%
|
50−55
+82.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−175%
|
55
+175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−292%
|
47
+292%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−1500%
|
16
+1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−500%
|
6
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−167%
|
16
+167%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−82.8%
|
50−55
+82.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−267%
|
44
+267%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−82.8%
|
50−55
+82.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−867%
|
27−30
+867%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−343%
|
30−35
+343%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how GT 415M and Radeon 540X compete in popular games:
- Radeon 540X is 533% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Escape from Tarkov, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 540X is 2000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 540X performs better in 33 tests (61%)
- there's a draw in 21 tests (39%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.68 | 3.76 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 5 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
GT 415M has 316.7% lower power consumption.
Radeon 540X, on the other hand, has a 452.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 540X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 415M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
